RE: LVD voltage range.

[SBarrows]

If I remember correctly, Rich Pescatore and others advocated the
developement and use of a mark that indicated compliance conformity via the
third party certification system. It could be used by any accredited Lab
(NRTL, IECEE etc.) and demonstrats to all a continued compliance program as
well as conformance to an internationally harmonized standard.

Scott Barrows
KTL Dallas

> -Original Message-
> From: roger.vi...@wwgsolutions.com [SMTP:roger.vi...@wwgsolutions.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 6:25 AM
> To:   geor...@lexmark.com
> Cc:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  Re: LVD voltage range.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George said:
> >In the ideal world, there will be one global mark to indicate that the
> >product meets all safety, health, EMC, environmental, and other
> applicable
> >standards.  The CE mark is virtually this ideal mark, but is only
> accepted
> >within the 15 member states of the European Union and a few other
> countries.
> 
> The CE Mark is not accepted outside Europe as a guarantee of compliance,
> nor
> indeed in Europe is it fully accepted as such, althoutgh that was the
> intention.
> Because there is no mandatory third party involvement, unscrupulous
> companies
> and especially importers can apply the CE mark even when it is not
> supported by
> any evidence. That's why there is currently some pressure for a
> third-party
> approval mark. Trouble is, today you need dozens of these - UL, IRAM, VDE,
> TUV,
> GS, FI, Chinese marks, etc..
> 
> Roger
> 
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Capacitors to Ground

[Ned Devine]

Hi,
 
I was quoting from the new edition, 3rd, of IEC 60950.
 
But, it does bring up the question of when the EN, UL/CSA versions will be
issued.  Anyone have the proposed dates?
 
Ned Devine
Entela, Inc.
Program Manager III
Phone 616 248 9671
Fax  616 574 9752
e-mail  ndev...@entela.com 

-Original Message-
From: barry marks [mailto:bma...@activepower.com]
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 2:20 PM
To: 'Ned Devine'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Capacitors to Ground


Ned, Interesting, my copy of EN60950 (covers through A4) doesn't have the
part about the "y" caps, it only addresses "X" cap applications in 1.5.6.
"Y" capacitors are referenced in 1.6.4, but that clause is specifically for
IT power systems, which our equipment will not function on.
 
What version of EN60950 did you quote that from?
 
Thanks,
Barry Marks

-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of
Ned Devine
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 9:49 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Capacitors to Ground


Hi,
 
You might be in trouble, Clause 1.5.6 of IEC 60950, 3rd edition requires Y.
See Clause below.
 
Ned Devine
Entela, Inc.
Program Manager III
Phone 616 248 9671
Fax  616 574 9752
e-mail  ndev...@entela.com 

 
1.5.6 Capacitors in primary circuits

A capacitor connected between two line conductors of the PRIMARY CIRCUIT, or
between one line

conductor and the neutral conductor, shall comply with IEC 60384-14:1993,
subclass X1 or X2.

The duration of the damp heat, steady state test as specified in 4.12 of IEC
60384-14:1993 shall

be 21 days.

A capacitor connected between the PRIMARY CIRCUIT and protective earth shall
comply with of

IEC 60384-14:1993, subclass Y1, Y2 or Y4, as applicable.

NOTE - The above requirement does not apply to capacitors connected from a
HAZARDOUS VOLTAGE SECONDARY

CIRCUIT to earth. For such capacitors, the electric strength test of 5.2.2
is considered sufficient.

Compliance is checked by inspection.

-Original Message-
From: BarryM [mailto:bar...@spaceship.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 2:03 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Capactitors to Ground


Hello all, 

I'm looking for any standards / decisions / interpretations, etc... that
discuss the use of capacitors to ground in industrial, fixed, permanently
connected equipment. We have a 3 phase, 400V product that requires a
significant amount of capacitance to ground, and the use of available "Y"
rated capacitors is burdensome in that it would take a lot of them. We're
aware of leakage current issues, and are well within the 5% allowance
(EN50091-1-1, which references EN60950 for most core requirements). We are
using about 1.3-2uf from each phase to ground. UL and CSA both do not
require "y" type capacitors in this class of product, I'm hoping there is a
similar rationale in Europe.

Thank you in advance for any comments you may have,

Barry Marks

RE: UPS standards

[Jim Eichner]

Be careful with the '950 reference.  EN50091-1 freezes the reference to
EN60950 at the 1992 version + the A1 and A2 amendments.  It does NOT
require/allow the use of more recent versions of '950.

Regards,

Jim Eichner
> Group Leader - Engineering Services
> Xantrex Technology Inc.
jim.eich...@xantrex.com
Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists.
Honest.




> -Original Message-
> From: Rick Cooper [SMTP:rcoo...@metlabs.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 4:28 AM
> To:   'Kevin Newland'; emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: UPS stnadards
> 
> 
> Kevin,
> 
> UL 1778 and CSA C22.2 No. 107.1 and 107.2 cover UPS products.  EN 50091-1,
> in case you didn't already know, is to be read in conjunction with EN
> 60950.
> 
> Rick Cooper
> Sr. Project Engineer
> MET Laboratories, Inc.
> 410-354-3323 Ext. 331
> http://www.metlabs.com/  
> 
> 
> 
>   -Original Message-
>   From:   Kevin Newland [SMTP:kevin_newl...@yahoo.com]
>   Sent:   Thursday, January 13, 2000 17:34
>   To: emc-p...@ieee.org
>   Subject:UPS stnadards
> 
> 
>   Hello all,
> 
>   can someone let me know what are the safety AND EMC
>   stnadards for UPS (Uninterruptible power system)for
>   USA, Canada? I know that in Europe they use EN50091-1
>   and EN50091-2 and I am guessing that the rest of the
>   world would probably use the above EN's.
> 
>   thanks
>   Kevin
>   __
>   Do You Yahoo!?
>   Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
>   http://im.yahoo.com
> 
>   -
>   This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
>   To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
>   with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
>   quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
>   jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
>   roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
>   
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Re: Taiwan

[ron_wellman]

Brian,

BSMI EMC regulations do not apply to Chemical Analysis Equipment. Check out the 
following URL:

< http://www.bsmi.gov.tw/english/emc/e_emc_10.htm >

There are no 9027 codes listed. 

Regards,
+=+
|Ronald R. Wellman|Voice : 408-345-8229   |
|Agilent Technologies |FAX   : 408-345-8630   |
|5301 Stevens Creek Blvd.,|E-Mail: ron_well...@agilent.com|
|Mailstop 51L-SQ  |WWW   : http://www.agilent.com |
|Santa Clara, California 95052 USA|   |
+=+
| "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age   |
|  eighteen." - Albert Einstein   |
+=+
 

-Original Message-
From: teck...@apcc.com [mailto:teck...@apcc.com]
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 6:12 AM
To: bharl...@vgscientific.com
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: FW: Re: Taiwan



BSMI approval for Taiwan is not as bad as it seems.  The easiest way to
obtain BSMI approval is to work with a laboratory on the BSMI list posted
at:

http://www.bsmi.gov.tw/english/emc/e_emc_09.htm

These labs can perform the EMC testing and take care of the paperwork.  The
laboratories outside of Taiwan will work with one of the BSMI approved labs
in Taiwan to complete the process.  You will end up with very little
paperwork to worry about.

I have done some work with Integrity Design & Test Services.  They perform
the testing and fill out most of the paperwork.  Integrity then works with
Advanced Data Technology in Taiwan to complete the process.  The extra
expense is not significant and it saves considerable time and trouble.

Most of the BMSI accredited labs outside of Taiwan are in the United
States, but there are at least three in Europe.

Ted Eckert
Regulatory Compliance Engineer
American Power Conversion Corporation
teck...@apcc.com

The items contained in this e-mail reflect the personal opinions of the
writer and are only provided for the assistance of the reader.  The writer
is not speaking in an official capacity for APC nor representing APCs
official position on any matter.



Please respond to "Brian Harlowe" 

To:   emc-p...@ieee.org
cc:(bcc: Ted Eckert/SDD/NAM/APCC)
From: "Brian Harlowe"  on 01/14/2000 06:31 AM
Subject:  Taiwan




-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

More Pollution degree help

[Debbie Hinde]

Hello Everyone,

I have a few co-workers telling me that they have seen a statement saying
that if the product enclosure meets IP-53 or better, that you can then
qualify as pollution degree II.  They cannot, however, tell me the source of
this information.  Are any of you familiar with this?

Thank you,
Debbie Hinde
Compliance Engineer
Woodward Governor Company
dhi...@woodward.com

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Ideal World

[georgea]

>George said:
>>In the ideal world, there will be one global mark to indicate that the
>>product meets all safety, health, EMC, environmental, and other applicable
>>standards.  The CE mark is virtually this ideal mark, but is only accepted
>>within the 15 member states of the European Union and a few other
>countries.

One Response
>
>The CE Mark is not accepted outside Europe as a guarantee of compliance,
>nor indeed in Europe is it fully accepted as such, although that was the
>intention. Because there is no mandatory third party involvement,
>unscrupulous companies and especially importers can apply the CE mark
>even when it is not supported by any evidence. That's why there is
>currently some pressure for a third-party approval mark. Trouble is, today
>you need dozens of these - UL,IRAM, VDE, TUV,GS, FI, Chinese marks, etc

In my assumed "ideal world", there would be no unscupulous companies, and
all would design fully safe products, not requiring third party assessments,
only a self-declaration and globally accepted "mark".

In the real world, your comments on the CE mark are accurate.  However, it
does represent the first attempt to employ a multi-national "mark", and
drastically reduce the number of individual assessments required. The CB
Scheme is another giant step in this direction.  Although it does not
automatically result in any marks, it does make the required approvals and
marks easier to obtain than a decade ago.  If a CB Test Report (and EMC
report) is used to support a CE mark, then you do have an ideal "world",
if only for a dozen or so countries.

Incidentally, even though the LVD does not require a CB Scheme assessment,
there are many non-European nations that have begun to require and accept
a CB Test Report as the only means of local approval.

George Alspaugh



-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Capacitors to Ground

[Ned Devine]

Hi,
 
You might be in trouble, Clause 1.5.6 of IEC 60950, 3rd edition requires Y.
See Clause below.
 
Ned Devine
Entela, Inc.
Program Manager III
Phone 616 248 9671
Fax  616 574 9752
e-mail  ndev...@entela.com 

 
1.5.6 Capacitors in primary circuits

A capacitor connected between two line conductors of the PRIMARY CIRCUIT, or
between one line

conductor and the neutral conductor, shall comply with IEC 60384-14:1993,
subclass X1 or X2.

The duration of the damp heat, steady state test as specified in 4.12 of IEC
60384-14:1993 shall

be 21 days.

A capacitor connected between the PRIMARY CIRCUIT and protective earth shall
comply with of

IEC 60384-14:1993, subclass Y1, Y2 or Y4, as applicable.

NOTE - The above requirement does not apply to capacitors connected from a
HAZARDOUS VOLTAGE SECONDARY

CIRCUIT to earth. For such capacitors, the electric strength test of 5.2.2
is considered sufficient.

Compliance is checked by inspection.

-Original Message-
From: BarryM [mailto:bar...@spaceship.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 2:03 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Capactitors to Ground


Hello all, 

I'm looking for any standards / decisions / interpretations, etc... that
discuss the use of capacitors to ground in industrial, fixed, permanently
connected equipment. We have a 3 phase, 400V product that requires a
significant amount of capacitance to ground, and the use of available "Y"
rated capacitors is burdensome in that it would take a lot of them. We're
aware of leakage current issues, and are well within the 5% allowance
(EN50091-1-1, which references EN60950 for most core requirements). We are
using about 1.3-2uf from each phase to ground. UL and CSA both do not
require "y" type capacitors in this class of product, I'm hoping there is a
similar rationale in Europe.

Thank you in advance for any comments you may have,

Barry Marks

RE: Capacitors to Ground

[POWELL, DOUG]

Barry,
 
In my company we have occasionally tried to use large capacitance to earth
but we not only had the "Y" cap value problem but also increased ground
leakage current to unsafe levels.  How are you dealing with the leakage
issues?  
 
Are you trying to solve an EMC noise problem?
 
-doug
 
===
Douglas E. Powell
Regulatory Compliance Engineer
Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
1625 Sharp Point Dr.
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA
m/s: 2018
---
970-407-6410 (phone)
970-407-5410 (e-fax)
800-446-9167 (toll-free)
mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com
http://www.advanced-energy.com
===

-Original Message-
From: BarryM [mailto:bar...@spaceship.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 12:03 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Capactitors to Ground


Hello all, 

I'm looking for any standards / decisions / interpretations, etc... that
discuss the use of capacitors to ground in industrial, fixed, permanently
connected equipment. We have a 3 phase, 400V product that requires a
significant amount of capacitance to ground, and the use of available "Y"
rated capacitors is burdensome in that it would take a lot of them. We're
aware of leakage current issues, and are well within the 5% allowance
(EN50091-1-1, which references EN60950 for most core requirements). We are
using about 1.3-2uf from each phase to ground. UL and CSA both do not
require "y" type capacitors in this class of product, I'm hoping there is a
similar rationale in Europe.

Thank you in advance for any comments you may have,

Barry Marks


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: LVD voltage range.

[Ing. Gert Gremmen]

Hello Folks

This may no be completely new for many of you , but for those
who make equipment for the European market and wish ce-marking,
the voltage limits for supply or external delivered voltages are
50/75  to 1000/1500 Volts (ac/dc) for the LVD. The new to come
R&TTE directive will make the 950 requirements in the EN version
(so EN60950) applicable to all devices in the scope of the new directive.
This implicates that most battery operated telecom devices need to prove
compliance with EN 60950 but without the lower voltage limit.
Even mains operated CE-marked mains adapter supplied equipment that
most manufacturers think need no LVD tests will. Many modems fall
into that category, as well as low end faxes  and telephone equipment.

Regards,

Gert Gremmen
ce-test qualified testing


==
http://www.cetest.nl
Do you know our
CE/E mark True type Font ?
http://www.cetest.nl/cettf.htm
==

>-Original Message-
>From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
>Of roger.vi...@wwgsolutions.com
>Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 1:25 PM
>To: geor...@lexmark.com
>Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: LVD voltage range.
>
>
>
>
>
>George said:
>>In the ideal world, there will be one global mark to indicate that the
>>product meets all safety, health, EMC, environmental, and other applicable
>>standards.  The CE mark is virtually this ideal mark, but is only accepted
>>within the 15 member states of the European Union and a few other
>countries.
>
>The CE Mark is not accepted outside Europe as a guarantee of
>compliance, nor
>indeed in Europe is it fully accepted as such, although that was
>the intention.
>Because there is no mandatory third party involvement,
>unscrupulous companies
>and especially importers can apply the CE mark even when it is not
>supported by
>any evidence. That's why there is currently some pressure for a third-party
>approval mark. Trouble is, today you need dozens of these - UL,
>IRAM, VDE, TUV,
>GS, FI, Chinese marks, etc..
>
>Roger
>
>
>
>-
>This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
>To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
>with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
>quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
>jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
>roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
>
>


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: LVD Essential Requirement for Radiation Protection

[Ralph Cameron]

Patrick:

I think you might find this definitive paragraph from the "Canadian
Broadcaster's Manual on Non Ionizing Radiation" pertintent to your query and
which complements other comments received:

"  Radiation, Ionizing and Non Ionizing

... the energy in an electromagnetic wave increases with frequency.
Around the ultraviolet range ( about 2 million Mhz) the energy is sufficient
to dislodge captive electrons, resulting in charged particles (ions) dashing
about with energies sufficient to break down or change atoms or molecular
structures. At this point the energy wave is classed as "ionizing
radiation".

Humans endure continuos natural low level ionizing radiation and regulations
control occupational exposure to some 2.5 millirems per hour for x-rays; the
American and Canadian standards for ultraviolet are based on a maximum
exposure of one milliwatt per square centimeter .  Visible light and
infrared are controlled as well, at ten milliwatts per sq. cm.  Excessive
radiation at any frequency can be injurious to health".

Limits do vary from country to country and Canada's Safety Code 6 is a
guidline recently revised where exposure to EM radiation can occur. It
applies to the general population as well as workers in the field. Copies
are availabel in pdf format if needed.

Ralph Cameron
EMC Consultant and Suppression of Consumer Electronic Equipment
( After Sale)
.


- Original Message -
From: "Patrick Lawler" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: LVD Essential Requirement for Radiation Protection


>
> What does 'non-ioniozing emissions' cover?
>
> Is it in the category of personnel safety and low-frequency EMF, or
> does it encompass simple product emissions like those specified in
> CISPR 11?
>
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:33:02 -0500, wo...@sensormatic.com wrote:
> >An interesting thing has happened to the LVD. Until now, the radiation
> >essential requirement of the LVD has been interpreted as referring to
> >ionizing radiation and there are harmonized standards addressing that
> >requirement, for example, EN 60950. That interpretation has now changed.
> >
> >In a draft mandate to CENELEC, CEN and ETSI, the Commission is now
> >interpreting the radiation essential requirement of the LVD to include
> >non-ionizing emissions and that the limits for the general public are to
be
> >per the Council's EMF Recommendation. The standards bodies are mandated
to
> >produce basic and product standards that would apply to the LV and R&TTE
> >Directives.
> >
> >There are no worker limits promulgated at the EU level.
> >
> >Which leads me to my question. When would this new interpretation of the
> >essential requirement take effect - now or the DOW of the associated
> >standard?
>
> --
> Patrick Lawler
> plaw...@west.net
>
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
>
>
>


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: Emissions & immunity setup: products with foot pedals

[Derek Walton]

Patrick,

most test labs employ test technicians that follow their procedure to the
letter, they are not taught to think about the test...

I suggest that, since you are responsible for your product,  have the lab
fully describe the test set-up that you believe should be the correct one
in the report. If they won't do that, find better lab!

Derek Walton

Patrick Lawler wrote:

> I'm having a lab do RF emissions testing on a desktop product that has
> a foot pedal.
>
> The lab technician insists on putting the foot pedal on the table-top
> along with the system.  I assume he's doing that because the typical
> setup for a desktop PC has the keyboard and mouse on the table along
> with the PC and monitor.
>
> I contend that the typical application has the foot pedal on the
> floor, and the test setup should follow the typical application.
>
> Comments?
>
> On a similar note, should the test setup for Conducted & Radiated
> Immunity follow the Emissions setup?
>
> --
> Patrick Lawler
> plaw...@west.net
>
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: Emissions & immunity setup: products with foot pedals

[Derek Walton]

Bruce,

I would not consider passing in a configuration not used ( foot pedal on the
table ), of any use whatsoever

The foot pedal being close to ground may entice current along it. It
certainly adds the vertical plane antenna that would be there in the
application

Best regards,

Derek.

Bruce Touzel wrote:

> - putting pedal on table top would be, I think, worst case conditions (as
> opposed to being on floor), regardless of where it actually sits during
> use.
>
> I think I would test this way just for peace of mind knowing it will
> comply in this setting.
>
> thanks
> Bruce
>
> Patrick Lawler wrote:
>
> > I'm having a lab do RF emissions testing on a desktop product that has
> > a foot pedal.
> >
> > The lab technician insists on putting the foot pedal on the table-top
> > along with the system.  I assume he's doing that because the typical
> > setup for a desktop PC has the keyboard and mouse on the table along
> > with the PC and monitor.
> >
> > I contend that the typical application has the foot pedal on the
> > floor, and the test setup should follow the typical application.
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> > On a similar note, should the test setup for Conducted & Radiated
> > Immunity follow the Emissions setup?
> >
> > --
> > Patrick Lawler
> > plaw...@west.net
> >
> > -
> > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> > quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
>
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: LVD voltage range.

[Dick Grobner]

I agree with Georges comments - We market numerous PC's, Laptop's and
Handheld computers, printers, etc. with our devices, as compliance engineer
for my company I look for the required marks such as UL,CSA,GS, CE etc.
Without these they don't get into our back door - thus not to our customer
site, and thus - hopefully - no liability suits.  

-Original Message-
From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 1:54 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: LVD voltage range.




>just thinking out loud but
>Is it possible that adding more approvals identification helps give a
>marketing advantage over other brands, even though it may not be required?
>ie. Customers just like to see more approvals

This is an astute observation with many answers. First let's discuss
"business
products intended for use in commercial applications.  In this case, the
"customer" may be a bank with many offices, government agency, major
automobile
manufacturer, or a company which wishes to buy the product and re-market
under
their logo.  In these cases, the more certifications the better, whether
they
are mandatory or not.  Why? Because it is usually less expensive to get the
certifcations than explain why they are not required.  Most such RFQs now
include a section on certifications, copied from the last RFQ, copied from
the
RFQ before that.

Consumer products are another matter.  If you conducted "exit polls" outside
Walmart, I doubt that any consumers would know what marks were on the
electrical
"appliances" they had just purchased.  However, in the U.S., these customers
are the quickest to launch liability suits in the event of an injury, even
if
the injury stemmed from extremely unwise actions on the part of the user.
For
this reason, it is prudent to have independent test lab assessments and
marks.
These show due diligence, but will not guarantee a reasoned jury verdict.

Europe is similar to the U.S. for business products.  However, I believe the
average European consumer is more aware of safety, health, and environmental
issues than their U.S. counterpart.  Even with the advent of the CE mark, it
is often wise to obtain certain country approval "marks" (now optional) to
improve the product's marketability.  Many country approval agencies spend a
good deal of money to promote the use of their "mark", to maintain revenues
lost by virtue of the sole mandatory CE mark.

In the ideal world, there will be one global mark to indicate that the
product meets all safety, health, EMC, environmental, and other applicable
standards.  The CE mark is virtually this ideal mark, but is only accepted
within the 15 member states of the European Union and a few other countries.

George Alspaugh
Lexmark International Inc.



-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: UPS standards

[Dick Grobner]

Our supplier of UPS's test theirs to UL 1778 and certified to CSA Product
Class 5311 05 The medical grade version to the earlier UL544 and certified
to CSA Product Class 8741 01. They also test their products following UL
1449 which is intended as a guide when testing Transient Voltage Surge
Suppressors.
Hope this helps!  

-Original Message-
From: Kevin Newland [mailto:kevin_newl...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 4:34 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: UPS stnadards



Hello all,

can someone let me know what are the safety AND EMC
stnadards for UPS (Uninterruptible power system)for
USA, Canada? I know that in Europe they use EN50091-1
and EN50091-2 and I am guessing that the rest of the
world would probably use the above EN's.

thanks
Kevin
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: 3 meter lab

[Benoit Nadeau]

Bonjour de Montreal,

In an earlier life I used a spectrum analyser and a very special type of
antenna to perform preliminary tests before getting to an OATS. The antenna
is called a Bowtop antenna. It has 2 advantages 1) it is very small compare
to usual (it has a cylinder shape of 17 cm diameter by 20 of height) and 2)
it has a very flat Antenna Factors curve (+ 3, +/- 2.5dB from 30 to 650
MHz). The only small problem is that it is an active antenna, so you must
recharge it or use it while connected to a power supply.

It is manufactured by a very small company in Arizona, here is the contact:

ETA Engineers
3225 N. Forgeus Av.
Tucson, AZ 85716
Tel: (520) 326-5447

BOWTOP ANTENNA, Model 100


At 01:48 PM 1/13/2000 -0800, pah...@pebio.com wrote:
>
>
>
>Society,
>
>Our company is contemplating a 3m lab for preliminary emissions scans.  We
>aren't looking for "submittable" results, but rather, a decent indicator of
>whether or not modifications to the EUT improve emissions.  In your opinions,
>what is the minimum setup needed to achieve this?  Without a proper ground
plane
>and some sort of shielding on the walls, can a spectrum analyzer/antenna
setup
>do any good?  How are other company's labs set up?  I've heard of people
putting
>an open lab on their roofs.  What kind of results do they get?  Any opinions,
>experiences, or ideas are appreciated.
>
>Thanks,
>Brent
>
>
>
>-
>This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
>To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
>with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
>quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
>jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
>roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
>
>
>
>


--
Benoit Nadeau, ing. M.ing. (P.Eng., M.Eng)
Gerant du Groupe Conformite (Conformity Group Manager)
Matrox 
--

1055, boul. St-Regis
Dorval (Quebec) Canada
H9P 2T4

Tel : (514) 822-6000 (x2475)
FAX : (514) 822-6275
Internet : bnad...@matrox.com, 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: Taiwan

[teckert]

BSMI approval for Taiwan is not as bad as it seems.  The easiest way to
obtain BSMI approval is to work with a laboratory on the BSMI list posted
at:

http://www.bsmi.gov.tw/english/emc/e_emc_09.htm

These labs can perform the EMC testing and take care of the paperwork.  The
laboratories outside of Taiwan will work with one of the BSMI approved labs
in Taiwan to complete the process.  You will end up with very little
paperwork to worry about.

I have done some work with Integrity Design & Test Services.  They perform
the testing and fill out most of the paperwork.  Integrity then works with
Advanced Data Technology in Taiwan to complete the process.  The extra
expense is not significant and it saves considerable time and trouble.

Most of the BMSI accredited labs outside of Taiwan are in the United
States, but there are at least three in Europe.

Ted Eckert
Regulatory Compliance Engineer
American Power Conversion Corporation
teck...@apcc.com

The items contained in this e-mail reflect the personal opinions of the
writer and are only provided for the assistance of the reader.  The writer
is not speaking in an official capacity for APC nor representing APC’s
official position on any matter.



Please respond to "Brian Harlowe" 

To:   emc-p...@ieee.org
cc:(bcc: Ted Eckert/SDD/NAM/APCC)
From: "Brian Harlowe"  on 01/14/2000 06:31 AM
Subject:  Taiwan




Hi Group
 Has anyone had any experience of achieving EMC
conformity in Taiwan?

By the looks of the paperwork I have it looks a pretty painful
process.

My main interest lies in the I.S.M. area.

Best Regards

Brian Harlowe
* opinions expressed here are personal and in no way reflect the position
of VG Scientific

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Emissions & immunity setup: products with foot pedals

[Ross Jatou]

You are absolutely right.  

A foot pedal is to be placed on the floor.  The lab technician may
maximize the emissions by finding the worst case location in a TYPICAL
application.  In other words, he/she can move the foot pedal under the
table while resting on the floor and not on the table top. 

I had a similar scenario 4 years ago, and the FCC agreed with the above.

Ross Jatou
ro...@amphenolcanada.com

-Original Message-
From:   Patrick Lawler [mailto:plaw...@west.net]
Sent:   January 13, 2000 6:18 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:Emissions & immunity setup: products
with foot pedals


I'm having a lab do RF emissions testing on a desktop
product that has
a foot pedal.

The lab technician insists on putting the foot pedal on
the table-top
along with the system.  I assume he's doing that because
the typical
setup for a desktop PC has the keyboard and mouse on the
table along
with the PC and monitor.

I contend that the typical application has the foot
pedal on the
floor, and the test setup should follow the typical
application.

Comments?

On a similar note, should the test setup for Conducted &
Radiated
Immunity follow the Emissions setup?

--
Patrick Lawler
plaw...@west.net

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion
list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to
majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without
the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: 3 meter lab

[Allen Tudor]

Sounds like your goal is to get an idea of the relative impact that a change 
makes.  For example, you have failed by 4dB at the test house and you want to 
try to mitigate the problem back at the office.  You measure the product as it 
is, make a change to the product, and measure again for a delta (change in 
emissions).  In this case, you would want to see a delta of at least 4dB.  For 
this type of testing, I don't think you need a shielded room or an outside 
site.  In the past, I have set up an antenna in a conference room to make 
measurements of this nature.  I didn't use a ground plane.  In fact, I have 
positioned the antenna as close as 1 meter from the product so the emissions 
from the product will rise above the ambient.  The readings on the spectrum 
analyzer will not be accurate, but at least you can see the delta between 
changes.  The delta that you observe should be relatively believable regardless 
of antenna position.  This technique is not valid for pre-compliance te!
sting however.  In this case, you should strive for accurate readings.

Allen Tudor, Compliance Engineer
PairGain Technologies  tel:  (919)875-3382
6531 Meridien Drive fax: (919)876-1817
Raleigh, NC  27616   email:  allen_tu...@pairgain.com


>>>  01/13 4:48 PM >>>



Society,

Our company is contemplating a 3m lab for preliminary emissions scans.  We
aren't looking for "submittable" results, but rather, a decent indicator of
whether or not modifications to the EUT improve emissions.  In your opinions,
what is the minimum setup needed to achieve this?  Without a proper ground plane
and some sort of shielding on the walls, can a spectrum analyzer/antenna setup
do any good?  How are other company's labs set up?  I've heard of people putting
an open lab on their roofs.  What kind of results do they get?  Any opinions,
experiences, or ideas are appreciated.

Thanks,
Brent



-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org 
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).




-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: 3 meter lab

[UMBDENSTOCK]

Brent,

It depends.  (Do you cringe when a response begins with "it depends"?).

Do you have a lab nearby so that you can establish a baseline for
improvement?  

In the past we developed products with a spectrum analyzer and a couple of
antennas in the lab, but you had to get to know your lab (characterize it)
much the same as a blind man needs to know his living space.  There were
plenty of ambients and reflections.  It was difficult.

Then we obtained a shield room.  It had no ambients but the reflections were
so bad that it still required obtaining a baseline from a certified site.

Then we built an OATS.  No reflections but the ambients were bad -- the site
is in town.  We were able to get the results we needed independent of other
labs.  The only problem was that we needed to dodge the rain and bugs and
humidity (South Florida). 

Now we have a compact chamber -- ferrite lined chamber for immunity work.
It also happens to be fantastic for emissions diagnostics.  NSA for a
certified site requires the site to be within +/- 4 dB, the compact chamber
is within +/- 6 dB, very useful for getting well in the ballpark prior to
wasting money on a certified lab.  No bugs, rain, heat, humidity, work
around the clock if you want (joy), no ambients, very minimal reflections
(hence the +/- 6 dB).  And compared to the carbon doped foam chambers of
many years ago, much more affordable.  Somewhere around 90k for the chamber
plus the cost of your antenna(s), spectrum analyzer and turntable (if
desired).

Hope this helps,

Don
Sensormatic

> --
> From: pah...@pebio.com[SMTP:pah...@pebio.com]
> Reply To: pah...@pebio.com
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 4:48 PM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  3 meter lab
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Society,
> 
> Our company is contemplating a 3m lab for preliminary emissions scans.  We
> aren't looking for "submittable" results, but rather, a decent indicator
> of
> whether or not modifications to the EUT improve emissions.  In your
> opinions,
> what is the minimum setup needed to achieve this?  Without a proper ground
> plane
> and some sort of shielding on the walls, can a spectrum analyzer/antenna
> setup
> do any good?  How are other company's labs set up?  I've heard of people
> putting
> an open lab on their roofs.  What kind of results do they get?  Any
> opinions,
> experiences, or ideas are appreciated.
> 
> Thanks,
> Brent
> 
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: 3 meter lab

[eric . henning]

Brent wrote:

>Our company is contemplating a 3m lab for preliminary emissions scans.  We
>aren't looking for "submittable" results, but rather, a decent indicator of
>whether or not modifications to the EUT improve emissions.  In your opinions,

I have had great luck with a spectrum analyzer and proper ant.  We work to get
the EUT
to look like ambient.  That is if you can't tell it's turned on, we then go to a
 test house
to get the official test done.  I have no ground plane or fancy equipment.  Just
 my Tek 2712
Spectrum Analyzer w/ EMC package and two ant.  I also use my spectrum analyzer
w/ LISN to do
conduted emissions.

eric h.



-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: UPS stnadards

[Rick Cooper]

Kevin,

UL 1778 and CSA C22.2 No. 107.1 and 107.2 cover UPS products.  EN 50091-1,
in case you didn't already know, is to be read in conjunction with EN 60950.

Rick Cooper
Sr. Project Engineer
MET Laboratories, Inc.
410-354-3323 Ext. 331
http://www.metlabs.com/  



-Original Message-
From:   Kevin Newland [SMTP:kevin_newl...@yahoo.com]
Sent:   Thursday, January 13, 2000 17:34
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject:UPS stnadards


Hello all,

can someone let me know what are the safety AND EMC
stnadards for UPS (Uninterruptible power system)for
USA, Canada? I know that in Europe they use EN50091-1
and EN50091-2 and I am guessing that the rest of the
world would probably use the above EN's.

thanks
Kevin
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Taiwan

[Brian Harlowe]

Hi Group
 Has anyone had any experience of achieving EMC 
conformity in Taiwan?

By the looks of the paperwork I have it looks a pretty painful 
process.

My main interest lies in the I.S.M. area.

Best Regards

Brian Harlowe
* opinions expressed here are personal and in no way reflect the position of VG 
Scientific

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: LVD voltage range.

[roger . viles]

George said:
>In the ideal world, there will be one global mark to indicate that the
>product meets all safety, health, EMC, environmental, and other applicable
>standards.  The CE mark is virtually this ideal mark, but is only accepted
>within the 15 member states of the European Union and a few other countries.

The CE Mark is not accepted outside Europe as a guarantee of compliance, nor
indeed in Europe is it fully accepted as such, althoutgh that was the intention.
Because there is no mandatory third party involvement, unscrupulous companies
and especially importers can apply the CE mark even when it is not supported by
any evidence. That's why there is currently some pressure for a third-party
approval mark. Trouble is, today you need dozens of these - UL, IRAM, VDE, TUV,
GS, FI, Chinese marks, etc..

Roger



-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: Argentina EMC requirements

[Corinne SALINGRE]

Approval is required for terminal equipment and equipment using the radio
frequency spectrum. This approval is managed through the CNC (Comision Nacional
de Comunicaciones). This approval can be granted only to companies based in the
country (local presence mandatory to support some obligations).
The approval package will review safety, EMC and in some cases functional
complinace. Although the standards used are national (including national
testing of course !) they are mainly based on international standards .
Having testing reports from foreign accredited labs can help of course to
shorten the delay to get this approval (and avoid new testing in many cases).
Hope this information is of some help for you.



ron_cher...@densolabs.com wrote:

> Does anyone know the EMC requirements for Argentina? The EUT is an AMPS/PCS
> phone.
> The kit will also contain accessories: charger, etc.
> Ron Chernus
> Denso
>
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).


<>

RE: LVD voltage range.

[Colgan, Chris]

Battery powered IT equipment may fall under the scope of IEC60950 but surely
there is no European legislation requiring IEC60950 to be applied to such
equipment.  If the supply is below 75Vdc it is outside the scope of the LVD
and the General Product Safety Directive does not mention harmonised
standards.

Personally I would test a battery powered product as far as I could to a
Harmonised Standard ie IEC60950,  IEC60065 etc as I believe products should
be as safe as we can make them.

Just my tuppence ha'penny worth

Chris Colgan
EMC & Safety
TAG McLaren Audio Ltd

mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com


> -Original Message-
> From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com]
> Sent: 13 January 2000 16:36
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  Re: LVD voltage range.
> 
> 
> More words (opinions) on this issue..
> 
> The "scope" of IEC 60950 does not establish a lower voltage limit.
> Section 1.1.1 states "This standard is applicable to mains-powered
> or battery-powered information technology equipment with a rated
> voltage not exceeding 600V."
> 
> Section 1.2.4.3 simply defines Class III equipment as that which
> protects against electric shock by SELV, i.e. non-hazardous voltages.
> It does not exclude such equipment, due to other possible hazards.
> 
> Section 1.2.8.3 defines hazardous voltages as those above 42.4V peak
> or 60Vdc.  Section 1.2.8.4 indirectly defines SELV as circuits meeting
> these requirements.
> 
> It is my opinion that "battery-powered" equipment, albeit low voltage,
> is included in the scope due to the hazards unique to such equipment.
> The energy stored within the batteries can (and has) resulted in fires
> within laptop PCs due to an accidental short.  The possibility of a
> burn hazard has already been mentioned.
> 
> If a Class III ITE device contains no batteries, and is powered by a
> "limited power source (section 2.11) it requires no fire enclosure
> (section 4.4.5.2).  As such, the only hazards remaining to be
> avoided are sharp edges etc.  This is why it is not mandatory (under
> the scope), nor practical, to "certify" such devices to IEC 60950.
> 
> Having said this, there may be other reasons to "certify, e.g. value
> of agency follow-up services distant (e.g. Far East) factories,
> customer expectations, and so on.
> 
> George Alspaugh
> Lexmark International Inc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 
=
Authorised on 01/14/00 at 09:39:21; code 37f48bf3E86C9804.
The contents of this E-mail are confidential and for the exclusive use of the 
intended recipient.
If you receive this E-mail in error, please delete it from your system 
immediately and notify us either by E-mail, telephone or fax. You should not 
copy, forward or otherwise disclose the content of the E-mail.

TAG McLaren Audio Ltd, The Summit, 11 Latham Road
Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 6ZU
Telephone : 01480 415600 (+44 1480 415600)
Facsimile : 01480 52159 (+44 1480 52159)

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: Surge Test Performance Criterion

[Ralph Cameron]

It wasn't done derek because there is no requirement that is mandatory. My
humble opinion says voluntary standards don't work as well as they should..
Sometimes it requires a resistor to limit the current going to the switch as
it obviously rectifies some of the RF. In some cases a bypass capacitor is
required also.
on the hot lead to ground.


Ralph

- Original Message -
From: "Derek Walton" 
To: "Ralph Cameron" 
Cc: ; "Jim Hulbert" ;

Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: Surge Test Performance Criterion


> Ralph,
>
> if all it takes is a resistor, I wonder why it wasn't done 99% of the
> population are stuck with a crap product The idea with CE was that
this
> shouldn't happen!
>
> Derek.
>
> Ralph Cameron wrote:
>
> > Derek:
> >
> > You want to locate one of those lights next to a transmitter that is
used
> > intermittently - the light sequences through LO-Medium-high then turns
off
> > only to come back on again when the transmitter is keyed.
> >
> > The AC switching device lacks immunity to RF but it may be easily cured
with
> > the addition of a single resistor.
> >
> > Ralph Cameron
> >
> > EMC Consultant and Suppression of Consumer Electronic Equipment.
> > (After sale)
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Derek Walton" 
> > To: 
> > Cc: "Jim Hulbert" ; 
> > Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 8:57 AM
> > Subject: Re: Surge Test Performance Criterion
> >
> > >
> > > Sorry Carlos,
> > >
> > > I can't go along with this one. If I'm using my PC here in the USA
midwest
> > and a
> > > storm comes along I don't want my PC shutting itself off every few
> > minutes Only
> > > been hit directly with two lightning strikes this last 2 years, but
during
> > a storm
> > > you can continuously heat squeaking as the modem is hit, I know the
power
> > is seeing
> > > voltage surges too. I'll have to put a Dranitz on the power just to
see
> > what kinds
> > > of voltage surges arrive The same applies to surges generated by
> > motors etc. If
> > > every time a motor switches on and my equipment does something, well
that
> > would have
> > > to go back to the store.
> > >
> > > By the way, I don't expect to find in the small print all sorts of get
out
> > clauses
> > > once I buy something
> > >
> > > A controlled shut down is there to prevent loss of life, destruction
of
> > the device,
> > > or something as equally bad.
> > >
> > > By the way, I was back home ( Manchester, England ) last October and
> > bought my Mum a
> > > light that turns on when you touch any metal part of it, it was CE
marked.
> > I have a
> > > similar light here in the USA, mine's not CE marked. BOTH turn on/off
when
> > there are
> > > voltage transients on the power line. Now you can wrangle all you
want,
> > but being
> > > woken up in the middle of the night because the light turned on when
the
> > dishwasher
> > > began it's Saver Seven ( low cost overnight electricity ) cycle, is
not
> > acceptable
> > > performance! If then manufacturer calls this acceptable performance,
then
> > perhaps I
> > > should call him/her in the middle of the night each time to confirm
that
> > > opinion...;-)
> > >
> > > What products do you make again;-)))
> > >
> > > Derek.
> > >
> > >
> > > During surge
> > >
> > > carlos.perk...@eu.effem.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jim,
> > > >
> > > > I agree with you, on the basis that in this case, a complete
shut-down
> > is a
> > > > designed-in function of the product, and the standard says "No
> > degradation of
> > > > performance or loss of function is allowed below a performance level
> > specified
> > > > by the manfucturer".  You, as the manufacturer, are specifying this
> > 'loss of
> > > > function'.
> > > >
> > > > In my mind, all you have to do is make the end user aware that a
> > shut-down will
> > > > occur when a surge is detected, and you should be OK.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Carlos.
> > > >
> > > > Please respond to "Jim Hulbert" 
> > > >
> > > > To: emc-p...@ieee.org
> > > > cc:  (bcc: Carlos A. Perkins/WIN/Effem)
> > > > From:   "Jim Hulbert"  on 12/01/2000 20:08
> > > >
> > > > Subject:  Surge Test Performance Criterion
> > > >
> > > > A product has a switched mode power supply with a current sensing
> > circuit that
> > > > causes the supply to shut down when a surge pulse is applied to the
AC
> > mains in
> > > > accordance with EN61000-4-5/IEC1000-4-5.  After about 10 minutes,
the
> > supply can
> > > > be turned back on and normal operation of the product can be resumed
by
> > the
> > > > operator.   Does this product conform to criterion B of the EN
50082-1
> > or EN
> > > > 55024 standards?  I believe it does because the sensing circuit is
> > specifically
> > > > designed to protect the product against this kind of voltage/current
> > surge and
> > > > the product operation is fully recoverable by the operator
afterward.
> > However,
> > > > I would like to hear how others who do this testing would interpret

Re: LVD Essential Requirement for Radiation Protection

[Neven Pischl]

Ionizing radiation's MAIN effect is ionization of material it interacts
with, i.e. it breaks molecular bonds, whereas nonionizing is any other kind
of radiation. The classification is not physiological, does not refer to the
human tissue, but matter in general. Some non-ionizing radiation can cause
ionization, but only at very high intensities, and not as its prime effect.
UV, RF, MW, ELF.. is hence non-ionizing radiation

Neven Pischl


- Original Message -
From: Tony Firth 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 4:12 PM
Subject: re: LVD Essential Requirement for Radiation Protection


>
> Patrick,
>
> In general terms "Non-Ionizing" refers to emissions that do not cause
damage to
> human tissue, (RF, Visible Light, ESD Ionization Generators, Etc.),
whereas
> "Ionizing" covers emissions capable of causing damage to human tissue,
> presumably from gene damage, (X-Rays, High Level Beta, Gamma Radiation, Hi
> intensity UV, Etc.)
>
> I do not know at what level e.g. a Microwave Generator would transit from
being
> "Non-Ionizing" to "Ionizing", although my understanding is that it is
still
> classified as being "Non-Ionizing".  And, of course, corona discharge
Ionizing
> Generators, (that ionize the air around them by design), are classified as
> "Non-Ionizing"!
> Unfortunately do not have a precise physiological definition.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Tony
>
> Tony Firth, Elect.Eng.,
> Quester Technology Inc.,
> Fremont,CA 94539-7474
>
>
>
>
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
>
>
>
>


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: Emissions & immunity setup: products with foot pedals

[Bruce Touzel]

- putting pedal on table top would be, I think, worst case conditions (as
opposed to being on floor), regardless of where it actually sits during
use.

I think I would test this way just for peace of mind knowing it will
comply in this setting.

thanks
Bruce

Patrick Lawler wrote:

> I'm having a lab do RF emissions testing on a desktop product that has
> a foot pedal.
>
> The lab technician insists on putting the foot pedal on the table-top
> along with the system.  I assume he's doing that because the typical
> setup for a desktop PC has the keyboard and mouse on the table along
> with the PC and monitor.
>
> I contend that the typical application has the foot pedal on the
> floor, and the test setup should follow the typical application.
>
> Comments?
>
> On a similar note, should the test setup for Conducted & Radiated
> Immunity follow the Emissions setup?
>
> --
> Patrick Lawler
> plaw...@west.net
>
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

re: LVD Essential Requirement for Radiation Protection

[Tony Firth]

Patrick,

In general terms "Non-Ionizing" refers to emissions that do not cause damage to
human tissue, (RF, Visible Light, ESD Ionization Generators, Etc.), whereas
"Ionizing" covers emissions capable of causing damage to human tissue,
presumably from gene damage, (X-Rays, High Level Beta, Gamma Radiation, Hi
intensity UV, Etc.)

I do not know at what level e.g. a Microwave Generator would transit from being
"Non-Ionizing" to "Ionizing", although my understanding is that it is still
classified as being "Non-Ionizing".  And, of course, corona discharge Ionizing
Generators, (that ionize the air around them by design), are classified as
"Non-Ionizing"! 
Unfortunately do not have a precise physiological definition.

Hope this helps.

Tony

Tony Firth, Elect.Eng.,
Quester Technology Inc.,
Fremont,CA 94539-7474